Standing Committee F

[Mrs. Marion Roe in the Chair]

Hunting Bill

New clause 11 - Use of dogs below ground

'Registration under Part 2 shall not be effected in respect of any hunting that involves the use of a dog below ground.'.—[Mr. Michael Foster.]
 Brought up, and read the First time. 
 Question proposed [this day], That the clause be read a Second time. 
 Question again proposed.

Marion Roe: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
 New clause 12—Lowland hunting of fox— 
'Registration under Part 2 shall not be effected in respect of any hunting of fox in an area of land below an altitude of 500 metres above sea level.'.

James Gray: I made the shortest speech in my parliamentary career before lunch, which amounted to no more than three or four words. [Hon. Members: ''Hear, hear.''] I knew that that would be popular with the other side of the Committee. I shall try to keep my remarks brief, but perhaps not quite that brief, this afternoon.
 We have had an interesting debate on the question of terrier work. We started with a new clause proposed by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), which would have banned the use of all dogs underground under all circumstances. During the debate, a number of my hon. Friends and I commented on the deleterious effect that that would have on the sport of shooting because of the use of dogs for the control of pests. 
 During the debate, the notion has arisen that there may be perfectly sensible, utilitarian and less cruel methods of using terriers underground in a variety of circumstances. The hon. Gentleman seems to be moving towards the view that the use of terriers to deal with orphaned cubs may have something to recommend it under some circumstances. The Minister seems to have realised, albeit dimly so far, that a ban on using terriers would have a grave effect on what gamekeepers across the nation are required to do. He is giving some thought to precisely what effect it would have, what he can do to help the gamekeepers' lot and how he can avoid the unintentional consequence to gamekeepers of any aspect of the Bill. 
 I take some comfort from all that. We appear to be seeing a bit of an opening up by the Committee, which is moving away from a total ban for propagandist and biased reasons towards a sensible consideration of what terriers could and should be used for. However, I have two concerns that might be addressed in the 
 winding-up speech. The first might be described as procedural. 
 The Minister has said that he is considering complex matters, talking to people and having meetings, and that he will report back to the Committee on what he is going to do. That is impractical, and I accept it as a slip of the tongue. It may be that because of the war, or for other reasons, consideration on Report is delayed. I hope that it is, as it would be strange to spend a day discussing foxhunting on the Floor of the House when we are sending 45,000 troops into battle. I find it difficult to imagine that, if there is no delay and we discuss the Bill on Report two or three weeks after our debates in Committee, the Minister will have concluded those studies and tabled suitable amendments. If that is the task that his Department has set for the civil servants, it would be useful to know it, as that would be some consolation to us and it would allay some of our concerns. 
 Even then, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) said, due to the febrile state of the parliamentary Labour party, it would be difficult to imagine the Minister tabling an amendment that would allow the use of dogs underground for the pursuit of orphaned cubs and persuading the party to accept it. If he intends to consult, come up with changes to the overall ban in time for consideration on Report and find a way to force them through, he should let us know that. Frankly, I suspect that that is unlikely. 
 My suspicion, which is slightly confirmed by the fact that the Minister spoke several times about later stages of the Bill, is that his consideration will take longer than the two or three weeks that we might have in hand. If he intends to introduce changes to take account of those difficult matters, that is likely to happen in the other place. If my guess is correct—I believe that it is reasonably accurate—and if the new clause is passed, the Bill will leave this place with a draconian, unworkable and unnecessary total and utter ban on all forms of terrier work, whether undertaken by hunts, gamekeepers or anyone else.

Lembit Öpik: Is not there an even bigger contradiction, as it would still be all right to send a terrier underground to kill a rat, but not to kill a fox cub? If I understand correctly, the Minister must explain how on earth that can be consistent with the primary concerns on animal welfare.

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman is not quite right, because the exempt hunting provisions in schedule 1 specify that dogs may not be used underground. If he is right, there is certainly a lacuna there, but that is not the central point, which is that the Bill will leave the House with a draconian ban on all uses of terriers underground if the new clause is passed.
 I very much welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Worcester has dropped the second new clause, which would have banned hunting outright. The Labour party seems to be moving towards an acceptance of the notion that hunting with dogs can have some utility, and I am glad that it has decided not to change that in Committee. I hope that the same 
 applies on the Floor of the House, so that the Bill leaves this place allowing foxhunting with dogs. I also hope that my interpretation is right. I welcome the more open-minded approach to hunting that the Labour party seems to be demonstrating. 
 On terrier work, however, the new clause would mean that the Bill left here including an absolute ban, which would have two consequences. First, the House would have made its opinion plain by saying that all terrier work should be banned. The Labour party spends all its time saying that the will of the House of Commons must prevail and that what it says must happen. That would become especially important should their lordships not agree with us on aspects of the Bill, causing it to go backwards and forwards between us. Ultimately, as the Labour party has often discussed, the Parliament Act might then be used to achieve the enactment of the Bill. 
 That Act would apply to the Bill as it left here. Therefore, even if the Minister improved this aspect in the House of Lords, but used the Parliament Act subsequently, those improvements would not be allowed and terrier work would be outlawed across the board. I do not think that that is what the Minister or the hon. Member for Worcester intend. They seem to accept that there may be some utility in terrier work, particularly by gamekeepers. If, for that procedural reason, the Bill became law and achieved Royal Assent with an absolute and total ban on terrier work, there would be appalling consequences for the countryside, some of which would be unintentional. That concern could easily be answered by the Minister considering the matter and coming back with an alternative on Report, which would have the effect that the hon. Member for Worcester seeks, but would also remove the deleterious and unintended consequences of an outright ban. That would be the procedural way to correct the problem. 
 My second, and rather more substantive, difficulty with the Minister's proposal is that he seems to be saying—although he is doing so largely by body language at the moment—that one form of terrier work is wicked and should be banned, but that other forms should be allowed. We should contemplate for one second what he intends. All terrier work is identical in that it involves putting a terrier down a hole and chasing out a mammal of one kind or another—all sorts of different mammals can be chased in that way. As the hon. Member for Worcester pointed out, some practices are unacceptable, such as fights underground, although those are largely fictitious. We might want to stamp those out, but most Committee members now seem to accept that using terriers to chase mammals out from underground is a reasonably sensible activity. 
 How will we decide which activities should be banned and which should not? I have a suggestion for the hon. Member for Worcester on how we can make that decision: anybody caught putting a terrier underground while wearing a red or green coat should not be allowed to do so, but anyone found putting a terrier underground while wearing scruffy 
 old clothes and speaking with a regional accent should be allowed to do so as they will be gamekeepers—there are ordinary people like them in the Labour party. It is obviously wicked to wear a red coat, get off a horse and put a terrier down a hole, which is disgraceful behaviour that should be banned. 
 The Minister is digging himself into a hole—there is no easy way to differentiate between terrier work by an organised hunt, by a gamekeeper or by terrier men. Those three examples are all part of one activity, and, leaving aside how people are dressed, there is no way to differentiate between them. Aspects of the private use of terriers in certain parts of the country should be sorted out. We have proposed a code of conduct, which could be a Government code of conduct for all we care, and we are content for abuses to be sorted out. 
 It will be interesting to hear how the hon. Member for Worcester intends to differentiate between the proper use of terriers for perfectly sensible activities that most people accept could occur and those uses that he believes to be unacceptable. When he speaks, will he bear it in mind that we are ready to accept any constraints that he chooses to put in place to stop illegal, wicked or cruel activities such as those he quoted from ''Earth Dog, Running Dog''? There are legitimate uses for terriers, which should continue. He seems to believe that they should continue, but how will he allow them to occur?

Peter Luff: I have a brief point to make, which I hope the Minister might address. Leaving aside the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), on which I entirely agree, the Minister is inviting the Committee to embrace a procedural nightmare. I have a specific question on the effects on rats and rabbiting: given that rats and rabbits are exempt under schedule 1, if terriers went underground in pursuit of rats or rabbits, would that be exempt hunting if the new clause were allowed? I am not a lawyer and I do not know the answer. I am worried, and look for reassurance on that point.

Michael Foster: In winding up the debate on the new clause, which I want to put to a vote, I pay tribute to some of the contributions, which have led to a well-informed exchange that lacked some of the knockabout point scoring that has gone on in Committee.
 The hon. Member for North Wiltshire must listen to what has been said, not what he thinks has been said or what the people who write his speeches thought that I was going to say. He reiterated his claim that the killing of foxes by dogs is done to maintain the health of the fox population, but I do not see how he can justify that argument and say that terrier work deals with sick, lame, infirm or even mange-ridden foxes. I cannot see how that works.

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman says that I was quoting him, but I have made no such comments today. I have not referred to the health of the fox population, and he is knocking back things that I did not say.

Michael Foster: When the record is published, it will be clear that the hon. Gentleman used the expression ''the health of the population being maintained by terrier work''. If he cannot remember what he said, there is no hope for us in Committee.

Gregory Barker: I honestly think that the hon. Gentleman is rather confused, and I do not recall my hon. Friend making those comments. Perhaps he is confusing my hon. Friend's comments with mine on the fact that there would be diseased, injured or mange-ridden cubs and foxes that go to ground. He obviously did not listen carefully enough and got us confused.

Michael Foster: I feel sorry for the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) because, as the contributions were being made, I took it on myself to make a list of some of the questions that needed replies. The point in question is under the heading North Wiltshire, which comes before Mid-Sussex in the order of the contributions made by Opposition Members. I will come to the points made by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle shortly, because his was an interesting contribution.
 The debate strayed and some time was spent on orphaned fox cubs. That is a difficult issue for all people who are interested in animal welfare matters and take them seriously. If the mother is killed, the problem for orphaned fox cubs is really in the first four weeks of their lives, which is when they rely on her for food. 
 Some people argue that a terrier should go underground and dispatch an orphaned cub—we must take that to mean a cub under four weeks, because that is when it relies on the mother's milk—and save it unnecessary suffering. There are problems with that argument—it is not as straightforward as some would have us believe. Sometimes, the terrier going underground will not get a fight or an aggressive response from the cub because it is too young. The terrier may well not engage in the activity for which it was sent down. The cub may well escape into a part of the earth that is too small for the terrier, so that it cannot reach the cub. We must take that concern seriously—despite the sniggers that I can hear from the back of the Room. After four weeks, when the cubs can come above ground, they can easily be disposed of. They will be young, naïve cubs and it will be easy to shoot them.

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman justifies his argument by saying that we cannot use terriers on cubs because cubs can run into some parts of the earth that are too small for terriers. Frankly, he is clutching at straws. On most occasions, when a terrier is put down to chase cubs in that way, the cubs are bolted into waiting guns or a net. That is what terriers are used for. The hon. Gentleman should try chucking stones on to a fox earth or chucking soil into the hole; the fox nearly always comes out the other end. The argument that cubs could find their way down to a hole in the back end of nowhere and sit there shivering is pretty weak.

Michael Foster: I was pointing out that the problem of orphaned cubs is not clear cut. It is not a matter of sending the terrier down to deal with them and the problem going away. There are far more important considerations to be taken into account.

Gregory Barker: I am particularly intrigued by the suggestion that one waits until the cubs are four weeks old and then returns to dispatch them. [Hon. Members: '' He did not say that.''] That is exactly what the hon. Gentleman said—[Interruption.] Perhaps he will tell me exactly what he did say. What happens to cubs that need to be killed when they are one week old?

Michael Foster: I despair, Mrs. Roe because I thought that I was addressing all the Committee and not just Labour Members. I said that at four weeks, when the cubs can come above ground, they are easy to dispose of. I did not say that one should wait four weeks and then say, ''Oh well, the foxes can be killed at exactly four weeks. We can time it by when they were born. '' We would not know when they were born. That is utter nonsense. Opposition Members have got to listen and pay a little more attention to what is going on in Committee.

Lembit Öpik: I heard the mild criticism of hon. Members. I am assuming that the hon. Gentleman will now deal with what happens, in his scenario, to cubs between nought and four weeks old. What happens to them underground without terriers, according to his proposal?

Michael Foster: Again, I thought that I had said this—it is a bit déjà vu-ish. I thought I had said that there was an argument that a terrier could be used, but it is not a black-and-white or straightforward argument because the terrier might not kill the cub or the cub might simply move away. The matter is not clear cut, so there is no straightforward answer to dealing with the cub, or with cubs that are orphaned when the mother is run over by a car. When people spot a dead vixen on the road, I do not think that they will, out of the goodness of their hearts, go out with a terrier saying, ''We must do our good deed and dispatch the orphaned cubs''. That is not the real world.

James Gray: We are making progress. The hon. Gentleman is now saying that the matter is not clear and that there are circumstances in which terrier work might be useful and others in which it might not; it is all difficult and not black and white. Does he accept that his new clause is black and white? It bans everything, irrespective of whether there is utility in it or not. Would it not be more sensible to withdraw it and propose a less black-and-white solution?

Michael Foster: The hon. Gentleman may not remember saying it, but I think that the words he used were ''All terrier work is the same''. The new clause treats all terrier work the same, so I have done what follows on logically from what he said.

Lembit Öpik: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing us to intervene on a number of occasions. He will understand that this question is of seminal importance to thousands of people in the country. Let me make sure, for the benefit of every RSPCA and League Against Cruel Sports member, that I
 understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He is willing to ban a method that pretty reliably kills fox cubs from nought to four weeks—it is nonsense that a terrier will step over such cubs—and to allow the cubs to starve to death. He is willing to compromise the welfare of cubs between nought and four weeks in the interests of banning terrier work. If he is banning the use of terriers to kill cubs, he has a moral obligation to provide an alternative and to explain it before we vote on the new clause.

Michael Foster: It would be a moral obligation if I were seeking the Committee's approval to deal with every orphaned fox cub in the country, however it had been orphaned. Animal welfare organisations will tell you, Mrs. Roe, and members of the Committee that they have concerns about the animal welfare implications for orphaned cubs, but there is no straightforward and clear-cut answer to the problem. Sending a terrier to dispatch cubs is not as clear cut as the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle suggested when he spoke to an earlier amendment that he tabled. That is why it is such a difficult subject.
 I cannot overstate the fact that, with new clause 11, I hope that I am dealing with a range of what I believe to be abuses of animals. A small proportion—fox cubs from nought to four weeks—could be dealt with by terrier work, but they are only a small part of the problem. New clause 11 deals with a greater wrong rather than with a small right.

Rob Marris: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as we have seen before in the Committee, to some extent Opposition Members are playing catch-up, raising arguments that they should have raised in much greater detail on schedule 1. New clause 11 is about registration. The exceptions that we are talking about could be dealt with under schedule 1.

Michael Foster: My hon. Friend is right. Members of the Committee have been free to table amendments to the new clause for many weeks. Indeed, there will be opportunities on Report or even in the House of Lords to deal with the matter.

Peter Luff: Can the hon. Gentleman explain how we could amend a new clause?

James Gray: On a point of order, Mrs. Roe. The hon. Member for Worcester says that we should have amended his new clause. Is there any procedure in the Committee whereby we could have amended a new clause before it was tabled—or now, perhaps?

Marion Roe: It is not for the Chair to give procedural indications.

Michael Foster: Given that my new clause was tabled on 9 January, as the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire said, it would have been easy for alternatives to be put forward since then, if hon. Members had wanted to.

Peter Luff: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Foster: No, sit down. I want to make some progress.
 The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex made an illuminating and thoughtful contribution, based on his concerns about certain wild bird species. He took as his example the wild partridge, a bird at risk from fox predation. His argument was that terrier work was needed to ensure that the species developed, thrived and was encouraged. However, he went on to say that improving the environment and stopping sheep grazing on the heather would have a far greater impact on the number of wild partridge.

Nicholas Soames: First, so that the hon. Gentleman knows, partridges do not live in heather; they live in the lowlands. Grouse live in the heather. That was not my point. It was that if we degrade the ecosystem in any way, we take a chink out of the way in which a bird or mammal survives. If we degrade the heather, that degrades the grouse, but once the heather grows back, the grouse come back and then we have to deal with the foxes. If we do not deal with them, there will be no grouse. It is simply part of the ecosystem. The whole point of the Opposition's arguments is the desire to retain a balanced ecosystem.

Michael Foster: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. He was saying that we can do other things to protect wild species, in addition to maintaining terrier work as a way of dealing with foxes as a pest. His contribution was also illuminating for the way in which he slapped down his own Front-Bench spokesman by saying that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire was factually wrong to suggest that foxes do not engage in fights underground. The response from the hon. Member for North Wiltshire was interesting, because he said that the suggestion was largely fictitious. I hope that the two hon. Gentlemen can sort that out between them.

James Gray: The point that I made was that organised fights underground—there are reports of terriers being sent down with the intention that they will fight the fox—are different. If the terrier is sent down to bolt the fox, the bolting may not always be as efficient as it should be, but a high percentage of foxes are bolted. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex has been around for longer than I have, but I have hunted for more seasons than he has and have been at more digs. One sees a fight between the terrier and the fox incredibly rarely. I have been at many hundreds of hunts and have rarely seen one. It may occasionally happen, and it is right to put in place something that will stop any such intentional fighting.

Michael Foster: I do not want to intervene in a playground dispute between the hon. Members for Mid-Sussex and for North Wiltshire about who is better and who has done it more times, but it was an interesting contribution from the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex.
 The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire made an interesting point on the pest control argument. His view was that terrier work would pass the utility test; my view is that it would not pass the cruelty test. That is why I take exception to terrier work and why I tabled the new clause. The argument about utility is mixed. 
 It is no good the Middle Way Group arguing about and hiding behind the utility and cruelty tests in 
 clause 8, when it had the opportunity to apply the test to mink and chose not to do so when it voted. It is all right to argue that we should put all these hunting activities to the two tests in clause 8. If Middle Way Group members are going to be principled when they suggest alternatives, they also should put the activities to the tests.

Lembit Öpik: I am sure that the hon. Member for Worcester does not intend to suggest that the Middle Way Group is acting in an unprincipled way. Without going back to the main hunting debate, he will remember what I said at that time. There was a question of judgment in drawing a line, just as he has drawn a line between ratting and foxhunting.
 I have two questions. First, does the Minister accept that pest control in upland areas requires digging out in order for it to be done effectively, a point that he has accepted in the past? Secondly, does he believe that this clause bans underground ratting and rabbiting with a dog? We have not had clarification from the Minister on that point.

Michael Foster: I would never accuse the Middle Way Group of being unprincipled. That is a wholly inaccurate assessment of my views. I know the group is principled; it is pro-hunt. It is as simple as that.
 In the Bill that I proposed in 1997, terrier work was specifically banned as an activity, although flushing out to guns for the Welsh gun packs in upland areas was exempt.

Alun Michael: The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire chose to ask my hon. Friend about ratting again. The ratting exemption in schedule 1 to the Bill would allow dogs to be used underground to kill rats, even if new clause 11 were accepted. I did not think there was any doubt about that.

Michael Foster: The record of my right hon. Friend the Minister's contribution will stand for itself. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle made the point, as if it were a killing one, that this issue is to do with terrier men—the human beings associated with the activity—and not the terriers. I accept that the Bill is, and has always been, about the activities of human beings. This is no great revelation.
 He made an interesting point about the furtive nature of some of the activities of terrier work. I believe that ''one man and a terrier'' was the example he used. He said that because that measure could not be enforced, the activity could not be banned. My argument is that if the activity warrants a ban, it should be banned. It will then be for others to enforce the law of the land. My view is that setting a dog underground either to kill a fox or flush it out to be shot later has such adverse animal welfare implications that I want it banned. Quite frankly, I do not care whether it is one person on their own, or a gang of people wearing red coats, green coats or multicoloured coats. It makes no difference to me. 
 The Minister made the point about further dialogue and how best to take the new clause forward if further 
 amendments were necessary, either on Report or in the other place. I am perfectly willing to discuss that with him and the Department, and I look forward to working with him on that.

James Gray: Would not the hon. Gentleman then agree that, procedurally, it would be more sensible for him to work with the Department prior to Report and to come up with new clauses that satisfy his purpose? It seems very odd to ask the Committee to vote for something that the hon. Gentleman suggests he may well seek to change on Report. Why not do it the other way round, which would be much easier?

Michael Foster: My perspective is that the default setting should be ''no terrier work.'' New clause 11 enables that. We start from the basis that if a suitable amendment that meets the animal welfare objectives and the concerns of the Minister and others cannot be found, new clause 11 should stand and no terrier work should be allowed.

Gregory Barker: May we take it that the hon. Gentleman's default setting is to let cubs underground starve? I should like to understand why this Committee has spent hours and hours debating the fate of just a few hundred hares killed by hare coursing when the hon. Gentleman can so flippantly and casually disregard the welfare of thousands of cubs, which clearly do not fit into his Stalinist view of the world.

Michael Foster: I have been accused of many things, but being a Stalinist does not spring to mind as one of them.
 I thought that I had made it clear that there are concerns about the nought to four-week period of a cub's life when the vixen has been killed. There are also wider implications about the number of foxes dispatched or terrorised by dogs being sent underground. That is the concern of new clause 11. Although I want to look at how that small group can be dealt with, it is a small group. As emotional as the matter can become, we are talking about a small group. 
 I should like to put on the record my support for hon. Members who have said that they will vote in favour of new clause 11. I hope to win the Committee's favour on it. 
 Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 18, Noes 5.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause read a Second time 
 Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.
The Committee divided: Ayes 19, Noes 5.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause added to the Bill. 
 Clause 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 40 - Arrest

James Gray: I beg to move amendment No. 41, in
clause 40, page 15, line 30, at end insert 'or'.

Marion Roe: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 42, in
clause 40, page 15, line 31, leave out from 'provisions' to end of line 32.

James Gray: Amendment No. 42 is the more important amendment. Amendment No. 41 is technical and consequential on the more important amendment No. 42, which would remove subsection (c) under the arrest provisions. The Bill states:
''A constable without a warrant may arrest a person whom he reasonably suspects—
(a) to have committed an offence . . .
(b) to be committing an offence . . . or
(c) to be about to commit an offence under any of those provisions.''
 One can be arrested if a constable believes one is about to carry out an offence. We do not like that. The powers granted to the police are draconian, extraordinarily wide and entirely disproportionate to the gravity of any offence. 
 We are not talking about rape or murder—although even in those cases it would be difficult to prove the intent to carry them out—we are talking about a practice that Government Members believe should be stamped out. I do not agree with them, but that is their view and that is the purpose of the Bill. To grant the police draconian powers to arrest people who they believe may be about to commit an offence strikes us as disproportionate. 
 Section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 already permits a constable without a warrant to arrest 
''anyone who is about to commit an offence''
 or 
''anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be about to commit an arrestable offence''.
 The Bill would set a bad precedent by saying that the 1984 Act needs to be strengthened further by including such a provision. 
 The provision does nothing to help the welfare of animals. If a constable is present and sees a person about to take part in an arrestable offence, or if he believes that that person has the intention to do so, he can wait until the person carries out the offence and then arrest him. If a constable sees someone who he believes is about to take part in the offence, he can prevent that person from doing so. That is a perfectly legitimate and sensible piece of policing. If he sees a man in a red coat riding a horse through rural England, he can say, ''Are you about to go hunting? If so, sir, I should remind you that hunting using dogs is illegal. I caution you against it, and if I catch you hunting animals with dogs, you'll be arrested.'' That seems to be sensible police activity. 
 When the Scottish Parliament were considering the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002, the Justice Committee of the Scottish Parliament concluded: 
''The Committee accepts the consensus among witnesses both for and against the Bill that extending police powers to situations where someone is 'about to commit' an offence is unnecessary and inappropriate. We therefore welcome Mike Watson's reported intention to lodge an amendment to address the point.''
 In other words, it is already an offence to attempt to commit a crime. There are better ways of stopping a crime being committed than making intention an offence in itself. Positive policing might enable a constable to prevent an offence from being carried out. The provision seems entirely unnecessary, utterly unrelated to animal welfare and totally obnoxious. Subsection (c) should be deleted.

Alun Michael: The expression ''shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted'' comes to mind. I have heard those arguments advanced on a number of occasions; indeed, I have heard Conservative Members resisting such arguments on criminal justice Bills over the past 15 years. Enforcing the law is not only about taking action after an offence has been committed or while an offence is being committed.
 At its best, legislation is also about preventing activities taking place by stopping the mischief that someone intends. If it were clear that a person was about to commit an offence, it would be nonsense for a constable to be prevented from taking action at that stage. To take one example, which may commend itself to Opposition Members who have asked us to strengthen the legislation, if the amendment were accepted a constable who came across a gang of well-known hare coursers entering a field with the clear intention of holding an illegal hare coursing event would not be able to arrest them until they had started to course hares. In that scenario, the would-be illegal hare coursers could not be arrested and could not be stopped from going elsewhere to start their illegal activities. 
 A number of Members of Parliament representing different parts of the country have raised concerns about the difficulties placed in the path of the police in stopping illegal hare coursing, which can go well beyond trespass and the actual activity and can involve intimidation. The activity damages many rural communities and those who undertake it depend on the police being unable to do anything about it until it is too late.

Gregory Barker: The Minister would be right in thinking that no Committee member has any time for illegal hare coursing and that all of us condemn it. Is he aware that section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 already permits a constable without a warrant to arrest anyone who is about to commit an offence or whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be about to commit an arrestable offence? The additional power is therefore totally unnecessary, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire said.

Alun Michael: Not quite. An arrestable offence is generally one for which a sentence of more than five years' imprisonment is possible. That is the difference with hare coursing, specifically because of the sort of experience that I have described in relation to illegal hare coursing.

Gregory Barker: I bow to the Minister's superior knowledge, but I cannot believe that a policeman would decline to arrest a burglar—we all know that burglary carries a ridiculously light sentence, particularly if it is a first-time offence—whom he saw going out with the tools of his trade towards a residential property or a drunken person about to get into a car.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman confuses what sentence might be given by the courts with the sentence available to the court for a particular activity. On burglary, a five-year sentence is certainly available to the court. He is right that such a sentence is unlikely to be given for a first offence, but that is not the point. An arrestable offence is one where the penalty available to the court is five years or more. As I said, hare coursing—I accept the hon. Gentleman's agreement that illegal hare coursing is a pernicious activity that none of us defend or support—is right at the bottom end of penalties. One of the Bill's strengths is that it would deal with that. At the moment, hare coursing is simply illegal because it is trespass and the powers of the police are therefore extremely limited.
 The capacity of the police to prevent activities by arresting people when it is clear that an offence is about to be committed should be protected and retained in the Bill. Clause 40 makes it clear that the constable must reasonably suspect that someone is about to commit an offence, so there is protection against arbitrary use of power. The problem is that if the intention is to undertake the sort of activity to which I referred—a hare coursing event and illegal activities that can be pointed to now—in a rural area where the number of police is fairly low, we do not want the situation to get out of control. We need the police to be able to intervene quickly, so I shall resist the amendment.

James Gray: The Minister seems to be saying that if some notorious hare coursers were on their way to a piece of land with their dogs in tow and a constable saw them he could do nothing about it unless the draconian subsection (c) were retained. That is a ridiculous notion. If notorious coursers were on their way to take part in illegal activities, surely the police would at least stop them and suggest that they should not do so.
 The second scenario that the Minister ignored entirely is the suggestion that if foxhunting is banned under this ridiculous Bill, we could all switch to drag hunting. That is wrong because they are totally different sports and Lord Burns came to a firm conclusion on that. Opponents of foxhunting believe in their dreamier moments that we shall just move hounds away from foxes to the clean boot and become drag hunters. If a constable saw me today in my red coat heading off to go hunting with the Beaufort and chase foxes and next Saturday saw me in the same red coat heading off on the same horse with the same people and dogs to go drag hunting, he would presume, reasonably, that naughty old Gray was heading off again to chase foxes. He would have the ability under the clause to arrest me because he believed that I was intending to break the law when I was in fact trying to carry out the Labour party's instructions and go drag hunting instead of foxhunting. 
 The Minister's reaction is puzzling because the matter is technical and has nothing to do with hunting. I am disappointed at his reaction, but, none the less, we have made the point and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Rob Marris: I would like an explanation from my right hon. Friend the Minister. My reservations are reinforced by what he clearly told the Committee: that arrestable offences are usually those carrying a penalty of five years or more of imprisonment. I would like a further explanation—he went into the matter in part when we discussed the amendment—why, with the penalties that can be levied under clause 39, we are making illegal hunting an arrestable offence. I have grave reservations about that and would like an explanation.

Alun Michael: My hon. Friend is right to suggest that it is sensible to have a light touch on such issues. It has been said on a number of occasions that many people who undertake hunting as a legal and allowed activity are law abiding. They will ask the sort of question that even naughty old Gray seemed to be asking a few moments ago. They will ask what the law says and then seek to obey the law. I sincerely hope that that is the case and it is certainly my expectation.
 The point is that we must include elements to deal with any sort of activity. The police are usually judicious in the way they use their powers, but there is a difference between the sort of people who may have been undertaking an activity that until now has been entirely legal but will be constrained or illegal 
 when the Bill is enacted and those who currently undertake activities that have been referred to in relation to illegal hare coursing. In that case, the mischief associated with illegal hare coursing goes far beyond issues of hunting or coursing, and of animal welfare and cruelty. A range of offences such as intimidation, trespass and damage to property are consequent on that activity. The better the arrangements in place for nipping such activity in the bud at an early stage, the better will be the enforcement of the law and the better will we be able to control the activity. 
 We can reasonably expect the police to look at any set of circumstances and do precisely what the hon. Member for North Wiltshire suggests: take a low-key approach, initially pointing out to people who look as if they are going to undertake an illegal activity that it is now illegal. The police would, however, be aware that powers exist for them to deal with illegal hare coursers, for example, who are known to have complete disregard for the law and its intentions, and to ensure that the law is honoured and respected. That is the sensible approach and I think that we can be confident that it will be taken in practice.

Rob Marris: I am not sure that my right hon. Friend has convinced me. I make an exception for criminal trespass because I do not recall the law on that, but intimidation and criminal damage to property, which he mentioned, can be arrestable offences anyway, depending on the amount of damage done. The police already have considerable powers under public order legislation. They can arrest people for drunk and disorderly behaviour, which is alleged to take place at the Waterloo cup. They can arrest people for obstructing a police officer in the course of his or her duty. If a police officer shows up at an event that he or she thinks might be going to be hare coursing or illegal hunting and tells them to move on or desist in that activity, they could be arrested for obstruction if they do not do so. I am still not convinced that the section 1 and 7 offences should per se be arrestable offences.

Alun Michael: In response, I can suggest only that talking directly to police officers who have tried to deal with illegal hare coursing events might convince my hon. Friend more than I can. I have discussed such matters. The problem is that we are talking about relatively untidy situations with a small number of police officers and a group of people involved in an activity. That is not as straightforward as one person with a hand on the collar of a long dog in a very clear action that can then lead to prosecution. My hon. Friend, from his experience of the courts, will be aware of the extent to which cases can involve detailed consideration of whether a particular event happened in precisely the way described, which leads, if he will forgive me, to some members of his profession making a lot of money out of defending—

Rob Marris: Liberty.

Alun Michael: Some defend liberty, but some defend too much liberty for some individuals. However, that is by the by.
 As I said, the capacity to prevent offending by saying, ''Look, it's clear what you are going to do and I have the power to arrest you—on your way'' and then intervening if necessary is a powerful aid to police officers in dealing with a group of people who are intent on breaking the law and will take things to the very edge. I put to my hon. Friend not so much the legal argument but the practical argument of how a situation appears on the ground. I suggest that that power is certain to be used sparingly by the police—on individuals such as those involved in illegal hare coursing. As the debate has made clear, there is no contention from either side of the Room that they do not need to be dealt with; we have not been able to deal with them in the past. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 42 - Forfeiture

James Gray: I beg to move amendment No. 291, in
clause 42, page 16, line 33, at end insert— 
 '(4A) A forfeiture order must, in the case of a dog, make specific provision for its care and well being.'.

Marion Roe: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 292, in 
clause 42, page 16, line 34, leave out 'dog,'.
 Amendment No. 293, in 
clause 42, page 16, line 39, at end insert— 
 '(5A) Where a dog is forfeited it may not be destroyed, and if the court under subsection (6) below refuses an application by a person having an interest in that dog, it shall be rehomed unless there is no reasonable prospect of doing so.'.

James Gray: I am sure that my hon. Friends are with me in spirit.

Nick Ainger: You are on you own, mate.

James Gray: I was saying to my hon. Friends a moment ago that we were the thin red line, holding back the bastions of new Labour on behalf of the beleaguered minorities in the countryside. We are doing what we can and fighting the battle.
 The amendments address a curious omission or lacuna in clause 42, which allows the court to order the forfeiture of various articles in the event of someone being convicted of breaking the Act. The articles would doubtless include such things as hunting whips, which could be used to carry out the offence. The dog or dogs would also be included and may well be forfeited. I am referring to subsection (4)(b). The Bill makes no provision for what happens to dogs after they have been forfeited according to the order of the court. Amendment No. 291 states: 
''A forfeiture order must, in the case of a dog, make specific provision for its care and well being''
 after it has been forfeited. That seems to me to be an uncontroversial and universally acceptable provision 
 and I hope that the Committee will consider accepting it. It would be a small victory if it did and something that I could take away from the Committee; a small thing, but mine own. 
 Amendment No. 292 is perhaps slightly more controversial in the sense that it would delete the word ''dog'' from subsection (5). The subsection currently refers to situation where 
''a forfeited dog, vehicle or article is retained''
 or surrendered. 
 Amendment No. 293 would add a new subsection to the clause. The new subsection would state: 
''Where a dog is forfeited it may not be destroyed, and if the court under subsection (6) below refuses an application by a person having an interest in that dog, it shall be re-homed unless there is no reasonable prospect of doing so.''
 I am talking about what happens to dogs that are forfeited. If a person is convicted, there should be a presumption that the dog will be rehomed. I do not like the word ''rehomed'' very much, but I hope that the intent behind it is understood. 
 There is a curiosity about the way in which the clause is drafted. If any person is convicted of an offence under part 1, any dog which 
''was used in the commission of the offence''
 or, under subsection (1)(b), which 
''was in the possession of the person convicted at the time of his arrest''
 may be forfeited. Under part 1, one can be arrested for allowing one's land to be used for hunting. If I am in my house in London with my poodle and have allowed the hunt to gallop across my land in Wiltshire, under the law the police can come to my flat in London and confiscate my poodle. The poodle is a dog in the possession of a person convicted of an offence at the time of his arrest. That is a strange anomaly; it is most peculiar. Clearly, the intention of the clause is to remove dogs that are used in the act of hunting. However, the way in which subsection (1)(b) is drafted means that any dog in the possession of the person convicted at the time of his arrest may well be forfeited. That seems entirely unreasonable. 
 The amendments are sensible and merely tighten up a curious gap in the clause. In a Bill that claims to be about animal welfare—it is becoming increasingly clear that the Bill is about human behaviour, rather than animal welfare—it seems odd, to say the least, that no provision is made for what happens to dogs once they have been forfeited. I fear that, as the Bill stands, the presumption is that they would be destroyed, presumably by the RSPCA or others. It seems reasonable to write into the Bill a provision that forfeited dogs should be rehomed or otherwise treated humanely and sensibly. That is what the three amendments would do.

Alun Michael: I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is sensible to ensure that dogs that are forfeited are dealt with properly and humanely, but there is no need to introduce a duty-of-care provision into the Bill, as he suggests. Such a change is not necessary. If a court deems it necessary to issue a forfeiture order in relation to a dog following the
 conviction of a person of an offence under part 1 of the Bill, it will include in the order any provisions it thinks appropriate for the treatment of the dog. Clause 42(4) says:
''A forfeiture order . . . may include such provision about the treatment of the dog, vehicle or article forfeited as the court thinks appropriate''.
 Indeed, subsection (5) contains a reference to the police force's responsibility to deal with the dog in accordance with the arrangements specified in the forfeiture order or 
''where no arrangements are specified in the order, as seem to the police force to be appropriate.''
 Common sense would require that to be in the most humane way possible. 
 I reassure the hon. Gentleman that his poodle is safe, although I shall not use the phrase, ''The poodle is safe in our hands''. He has not introduced us to Fifi, but I am sure that she is the apple of his eye. Before his poodle can be confiscated, the police must have a court order for its forfeiture, and the court will not order forfeiture unless there is good reason to do so. Both the police and the court must behave reasonably in this regard. Clearly an individual who is undertaking an illegal activity under the Bill may have in their possession other dogs not immediately involved in that activity. It is sensible that those dogs should be taken into consideration and that the court should have powers to order forfeiture where appropriate. With that reassurance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his poodle can live happily ever after. 
 Amendments Nos. 292 and 293 would introduce a new subsection, which would provide that a dog could not be destroyed, but should be rehomed unless there was no reasonable prospect of doing so. That may be sensible and logical, given the available options, but it would deny the courts and the rehoming centres the option to dispose of the dog where appropriate. I understand that some rescue centres already experience difficulties in retraining and rehoming some domestic dogs, never mind hunting dogs, which are likely to represent an even stiffer challenge. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the term ''rehoming'', but it is convenient and we know what it means. There may be good reasons for destroying a dog, and the option to deal with it in the most appropriate manner must remain in the Bill. As drafted, the amendment would not work, because it prohibits the destruction of a forfeited dog, even where it cannot be rehomed. That would place an obligation on the court to keep dogs that could not be rehomed, which cannot be a sensible approach. 
 I assure the hon. Gentleman that dogs caught by the Bill will be dealt with responsibly and humanely. His aspiration in tabling the amendments has my sympathy, but I hope that I have been able to persuade him that they are not necessary.

James Gray: I want to make a couple of brief points of clarification. First, I take this opportunity to make it plain to the Committee that I do not have a poodle. I am delighted to say that, although I like them very much; I am a strong poodle supporter. I have a Jack
 Russell terrier, Juno, which I bought from the local hunt, and a fine little dog she is, too.

Peter Bradley: She ate the poodle. [Laughter.]

James Gray: I did not catch what the hon. Gentleman said from a sedentary position, but it was obviously funny.

Gregory Barker: He said, ''She ate the poodle''.

James Gray: The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) finds that funny. It is quite interesting that people who are so opposed to the hunting of animals with dogs should find that so funny.
 I have no intention of breaking the law set out under the provision, or any other law. There are something like six or eight hunts in my constituency, and I shall seek to go out with all of them in the week before Her Majesty signifies her consent to this ghastly Bill. I will not go out with them immediately afterwards. A Member of Parliament obeys the law, irrespective of how bad that law may be. I shall be hunting right up until midnight on the last day, but not on the next day, in the unlikely and awful event that the Bill becomes law. 
 It was interesting to hear one admission the Minister made in his response. He is absolutely right about a point that people have not considered at all carefully. There are about 26,000 foxhounds in use in the UK. Added to that is a large number of beagles, and an extraordinarily large number of long dogs and terriers. I would not be surprised if we were talking about 50,000 or 100,000 dogs whose use will be banned as a result of the Bill. 
 The Minister is right to say that it is nonsense to imagine rehoming a pack of foxhounds. There is no way in the world that a foxhound would be at home in front of someone's Aga in the kitchen. That is nonsense, and it is absurd when the RSPCA and others suggest that it could be done. I was glad to hear the Minister confirm that he did not see that as practical. If the Bill becomes law, something in the order of 100,000 dogs—it may be more for all I know—will probably be slaughtered. Government Members who are concerned about animal welfare might like to think about that. The blood of 100,000 hounds will be on their hands if the Bill becomes law.

Alun Michael: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that those hounds generally do not reach the end of their natural life, but are put down when they reach the limit of their usefulness in the hunt, well within the limits of their natural life?

James Gray: That, of course, is the case with all working dogs of all kinds. The same applies to sheepdogs and all other working dogs. It also applies to other working animals. Cows do not reach the end of their natural life. They are slaughtered to make the Minister's leather shoes and to give him a steak for his supper. Animals do not go into retirement homes and live to the end of their natural lives.
 The Minister seems to think that the killing of hounds before they come to the end of their natural 
 life is a bad thing, and he seems to think that they should be allowed to continue to the end of their natural lives. He said a moment ago that foxhounds could not be rehomed. What is his solution to the problem? He says that they must not be killed. That is what he said just now.

Alun Michael: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Gray: In a moment. The Minister said that he does not like the idea of them being killed before they come to the end of their natural lives, but he says that they cannot be rehomed. If the Bill is passed, what is he going to do with 100,000 hounds and dogs of other kinds that may be affected by it?

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman is not so much a master of foxhounds as a master of extrapolation. Yet again he has said, ''The Minister said'' and so forth, putting words in my mouth that I have never uttered and never thought of uttering. It is not a very illuminating way of approaching matters. I merely raised the point in order to set his remarks in context. I think that I have succeeded in doing that.

James Gray: That was delphic in the extreme. I have no idea what the Minister's intervention was supposed to mean. I understood him a moment or two ago to say that he did not like the idea of hounds being killed early.

Alun Michael: No.

James Gray: The Minister says from a sedentary position that he did not say that. He now says that he is quite content for them to be killed.

Alun Michael: No, I did not say that either.

James Gray: The Minister is in a muddle, as he is with the rest of the Bill. However, we shall leave aside the muddle that he is in. Goodness me, I would not want to be the Minister given the mess made of his Bill today and over the last few weeks.
 With regard to the question of what happens to the dogs after they are confiscated by the courts, I accept the Minister's assurances that they would be well looked after under laws that exist at the moment and that no court would sensibly seek to have them put down unless that were the right thing to do. He is probably right. I accept the point that the amendment we have proposed is unnecessary under current law. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 43 and 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45 - Interpretation

James Gray: I beg to move amendment No. 359, in
clause 45, page 18, line 4, leave out 'includes, in particular' and insert 'is'.

Marion Roe: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 43, in
clause 45, page 18, line 9, leave out 'living wild' and insert 
 'is a deer, hare, fox or mink'.

James Gray: Amendment No. 359 is the more consequential of the two amendments and amendment No. 43 is the more substantive. We are dealing here with interpretation and definition and there is an important series of debates to come because there are some misunderstandings over the Bill's definitions. These amendments deal with what a wild mammal is. At the moment, the Bill reads:
''In this Act, 'wild mammal' includes, in particular'',
 then lists various things. Amendment No. 359 would replace ''includes, in particular'' with ''is''. Amendment No. 43 would replace 
''any mammal which is living wild''
 with 
''any mammal which is a deer, hare, fox or mink''.
 That would clarify the definition of a wild mammal. 
 Criminal offences should be clearly defined and certain. It should be absolutely clear what constitutes an offence and how that can be avoided. The Bill as drafted fails on all those counts. Lawyers tell me that the definition of hunting in subsection (2) is a non-exhaustive definition. It includes any case where 
''a person engages or participates in the pursuit of a wild mammal''
 with one or more dogs employed in that pursuit, whether or not they are controlled by him or are under his direction. It is unclear not only what hunting consists of but what a wild mammal is for the purposes of the Bill. The Bill states that a wild mammal 
''includes . . . any mammal which is living wild.''
 Presumably, that also covers any other mammal not included in other categories in the clause, apart from rats and rabbits. The definition is plainly not exhaustive. 
 The definitions are crucial because they attempt to define the core component of the offence, namely, what hunting a wild mammal means. If we do not know what that is, how can people be convicted of it? The word ''includes'' suggests that the definition of hunting here is not exhaustive and other actions could be caught. A definition that is not exhaustive is by its nature lacking in the certainty and clarity that fairness demands. 
 I will not bore the Committee with extensive quotes from ''Archbold'', although I am sure that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West would like me to do that so that he could engage in an interesting legal debate. If pressed on the matter, however, I could advance all sorts of legal precedents and arguments in favour of the amendment. 
 The current definition of a wild mammal seems to be vague. The words ''include, in particular'' are very strange. The amendments would substantially and usefully clarify the Bill.

Rob Marris: I shall address my remarks principally to amendment No. 43, which raises the main issue that is before us at present on clause 45 and is very interesting. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire mentioned a non-exhaustive list and ''Archbold'', which, for those who do not know, is one of the leading textbooks on criminal law, if not the leading
 one. I want to step back from that, perhaps to the hon. Gentleman's surprise. For any David Attenboroughs, it is pretty clear what a mammal is. It is clear that people do not generally go hunting cetaceans with dogs. They do not go hunting bats with dogs, because of the other protections in our legislation and because of the nature of the beast. However, many other quadrupeds, principally land based, could be hunted with dogs.
 Amendment No. 43 is interesting because it is a second line of defence for those in favour of few, greater restrictions than are on hunting with dogs at present. It mentions the four species of mammals that people normally talk about in pubs and clubs, as well as in Parliament, when discussing whether hunting should be banned or should have tighter or lesser restrictions on it. 
 Perhaps I may cite to the Committee as an example the Eastern Counties otter hounds. Otter hunting with dogs was banned in 1975 because of the rarity of the otter species, which was then very much in decline, and three years later, the Masters of Mink Hounds Association was formed.

Gregory Barker: May I correct the hon. Gentleman? Otter hunting was not banned. It ceased as an activity through the self-regulation of the hunt concerned, which realised that the species was in decline. Like other hunts, it takes a great interest in species management, so it declined to hunt before any regulation from Parliament or elsewhere could be imposed on it.

Rob Marris: I stand corrected. It may sadden the hon. Gentleman to know that that does not detract from my point, which is that the Eastern Counties otter hounds switched initially, because of the difficulties of chasing and hunting otters, to hunting coypu, which at that point were a problem in East Anglia. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food got rid of coypu without, MAFF might argue, the assistance of the Eastern Counties otter hounds, but that is as may be. When coypu were no longer around, the Eastern Counties otter hounds made the second switch—to hunting mink. From memory, I think that there are now 20 mink hunts, hunting mink with dogs.
 What is interesting about amendment No. 43 is that it would narrow the impact of the Bill, and particularly of registration under part 2, to the four species named in the amendment. That would mean that those who hunt one of those four species, if one or more of the four were banned as a result of the Bill becoming an Act, might start to look for other species to hunt—weasels, stoats or whatever.

Candy Atherton: Wild boar.

Rob Marris: Or wild boar, as my hon. Friend says. She may be interested to know that yesterday in Spain a hunt of wild boar was stopped, because there are so many illegal immigrants in southern Spain that the Spaniards were worried they would get shot by people out shooting wild boar. Wild boar are hunted on the continent. I am not aware, though again I stand to be corrected by those with greater knowledge, that wild
 boar are hunted in the United Kingdom by people with packs of dogs, although they may be hunted in other ways.

Nicholas Soames: The answer is that wild boar are hunted in France with hounds in the conventional way, as well as being shot. In Germany, they are only shot. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, there is an increasing spread of wild boar in southern England. If the iniquities of the Bill make it necessary, we may have to transfer from hunting foxes to hunting wild boar.

Rob Marris: I thank the hon. Gentleman for an interesting contribution. The proliferation of wild boar, particularly in France as I am sure he will know, is the result of interbreeding between pigs and wild boar, which was done to increase their numbers. Instead of having one small litter a year, as wild boar do, the interbred species have two litters a year of up to seven or eight in each. There has been a huge proliferation of wild boar, particularly in southern France—and they are still wild boar. They eat grapes and things; they are a real pest. That could happen in the United Kingdom too, particularly with climate change in the south-east, where grapes are now grown, as well as in Halfpenny Green, near the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley), where they make excellent wine. [Interruption.] There are also the Wroxeter vineyards, which are very ancient, but that need not detain us.
 If amendment No. 43 were agreed, the Bill became an Act and the hunting of those four species in some form or other was banned or strongly discouraged, those who currently hunt one of them might switch, primarily to wild boar, but perhaps to stoats, weasels or bats. The amendment is revealing. I urge my hon. Friends to vote against it. The law is not uncertain; biologists are pretty clear what mammals are. I want the registration system—in as much as it remains in part 2—to cover all wild mammals and not just the four mentioned in amendment No. 43.

Nicholas Soames: I rise only to say that I would not like you to have a shock one night, Mrs. Roe, when you are going home to your house in Kent or to think that you have had too much delicious red wine when you see a wild boar in the middle of the road. That is what is likely to happen. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) is right and made a fair point, but I want to correct him on one thing. The inferior wild boar in France—the altogether inferior beast—is the sanglier elevage, which is a wild pig that has been bred inside a large enclosure for the purpose of shooting. That is not the sort of sport in which the hon. Gentleman or I would want to be involved.
 The wild boar is a magnificent animal, as the hon. Gentleman knows. His biology is slightly wrong. The real wild boar produces endless piglets and is prolific, which is why he is such a sporting animal to have around. Unlike the fox cubs, with which my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle is obsessed, the baby boar—the wild boarlet—is a hardy and pretty animal. In my brief contribution, I wish only to urge 
 you not to be alarmed, Mrs. Roe, if you see a wild boar in Kent. There are lots of them around. I saw one the other day and really was convinced that I had had too much too drink—

Rob Marris: And he had.

Nicholas Soames: And I had. But in fact it really was a wild boar.
 I also want to endorse the hon. Gentleman's point. It is a fair one and it is not as abstruse as it sounds.

John Gummer: I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex: it is possible both to see a wild boar and to have had too much drink. The two things can be coterminous.
 The Minister should be aware that wild boar are not cuddly animals and one does not want too many of them around. I have had to sort out what happens when wild boar get out because they were badly controlled by neighbours. The problem is serious. We are not talking about something that is a happy addition, in many people's minds, to the English countryside. One of the things that concerns me is that a wild boar caused real difficulty in our neighbourhood by threatening children on horses and ponies and by rooting up and destroying large quantities of crops, gardens and other things. That is the nature of the animal. In the end, we could get rid of it only by a form of hunting; that was the only mechanism that could be used. 
 I remind the Committee in case it has forgotten during the week that we were away—perhaps the sharpness of the debate has disappeared—that people hunt primarily for a utilitarian reason. Therefore, the amendment is rather good. It takes the Government's view and translates it into the present circumstances, but it is humble enough not to think that the situation will necessarily continue as it is even for those who support what we have before us. It says simply, ''Although the Opposition disagree with the Government's assessment of the present situation, the Government ought to restrict themselves to dealing with the problem as they see it.'' We think that they have got the wrong problem and the wrong answer, but that is what they should restrict themselves to. Let that be clearly stated in the Bill and let us see what happens elsewhere. 
 If further change needs to be made, do not let us take a broad-brush approach that suggests that there are no circumstances whatever in which some other species should not be hunted. That is the spirit of the Bill, or certainly was before the very sad action of the Minister over the hunting of hares. If he wishes to redeem himself, and perhaps he does in this serious time of the nation's life, he should be humble enough to restrict the Bill to the things that he knows about, even if he is wrong about them.

Alun Michael: First, I do not feel any need to redeem myself because I have continued to deal consistently with issues according to the principles that underlie the Bill and the evidence, including the debates that have taken place in the Committee.
 The amendment addresses clause 45(1), which interprets the words ''wild mammals''. Amendment No. 359 would remove the three words ''includes in particular'' from the clause. The definition of wild mammal given in the Bill has been deliberately chosen. The term ''wild mammal'' should be interpreted as having its ordinary English meaning. However, there are points of legal interpretation that need to be made clear or we may have unintended problems in the application of the legislation. 
 It is important to clarify that the meaning of wild mammal in this legislation differs from the one in the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 in that it includes captive animals. Clause 45(1) puts it beyond doubt that the prohibition of hunting applies not only to mammals that are living wild or wild mammals that have escaped or been released from captivity, but to captive mammals that are captive animals within the meaning of the Protection of Animals Act 1911. 
 It is also important to understand that the words ''includes in particular'' are commonly inserted when drafting legislation in order to give a clear direction to the courts that they should not allow a list of examples to detract from the generality and the breadth of the provision. The Bill applies to the hunting of any wild mammal and while the descriptions in clause 45(1) probably cover most cases, we cannot be certain that they will cover them all. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West was quite right to point out that when an animal becomes unavailable because it is protected, its hunting is prohibited, or it is not around, the legislation should deal with new situations as well as the current ones. One does not have to argue why the move to mink hunting took place in order to observe that it happened and that mink became a new quarry species.

Nicholas Soames: It is clear that the Minister's colleague the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West is shaping up to replace the ghastly Derry. He has made a very important point. Will the Minister explain to the Committee his policy on the hunting of wild boar in England? An expectant sporting nation is anxious to hear it.

Alun Michael: If anyone wished to undertake the hunting of wild boar in England, they would have to make an application to do so. They would have to satisfy the tests of utility and least suffering. That is quite straightforward. It reflects the consistency of the Bill, and the situation has been absolutely clear since its publication on a variety of occasions.

John Gummer: May I remind the Minister of the example that I gave him of a wild boar endangering young people on ponies? It has escaped, is rushing around and is a danger. It is a serious danger; we are not talking about a rabbit. Is the Minister really suggesting that instead of hunting and killing a wild boar, people should wait for months to obtain a licence? Should children and animals threatened by a wild boar have to wait for the Secretary of State to give permission to do something that is manifestly necessary?

Alun Michael: No, of course not. That is allowed for in the measures dealing with escaped animals. The right hon. Gentleman should look at the drafting of the Bill because the circumstances will vary. If a group of people wish to hunt an animal that is not currently a quarry animal for the purposes of sport or pest control, the Bill makes allowance for that. Clearly, in the example, it would not be allowed for pure sport, but if it was for necessary pest control—because of a population of wild boar in a particular area—the Bill allows arrangements to be made for that eventuality. I hope that I have been able to satisfy the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen that the Bill deals with that.

Gregory Barker: I am afraid that I am still not clear about the Minister's reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). In my constituency in east Sussex, wild boar pose a real and present danger that is likely to increase, but the danger is sporadic because the wild boar moves around. If they were spotted in the woods at the bottom of my village, for example, would people be entitled to hunt them and to use dogs if that was the best way of hunting and killing them?

Alun Michael: There are two separate answers. First, the Bill refers specifically to any animal that is a pest, and it allows the use of dogs. The alternative is to track it and shoot it. That possibility exists and is not prohibited in the Bill.
 Secondly, if the control of animal numbers is necessary in future because the population increases and needs to be controlled, the Bill provides arrangements for that to be done with dogs if that happens to be the best way and meets the tests of utility and least suffering. Although the examples are partly theoretical and partly practical, they pose no difficulty under the Bill as drafted.

Gregory Barker: I do not want to detain the Minister, but is he saying that dogs cannot be used to track or corner a wild boar in a similar way to that which might be used for deer? I have no doubt that if a wild boar presented itself as a pest in my area it would be shot, but it is likely that dogs would be used to track it down. Would a licence be required to do that?

Alun Michael: I refer the hon. Gentleman to schedule 1—I am happy to go into more detail to ensure that I am precisely right—which allows stalking and flushing out. That exemption allows two dogs to be used to track a boar for the purpose of shooting it, so it is dealt with in the Bill.
 I am trying to respond to the range of options that Opposition Members have raised. If there is a wish to hunt animals in ways that do not happen at present, the Bill makes the necessary provision. If an animal is a danger, the options of shooting, tracking or flushing out are available in schedule 1. I can assure the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle that whatever the problem he anticipates, it can be dealt with properly and in an orderly way under the Bill as drafted. 
 The essential point is that the amendment would remove words that have a useful legislative purpose and should be retained. They help not only those who may be most affected by the Bill, but those who would be required to interpret the law. I suggest to the hon. 
 Member for North Wiltshire that he does not pursue the amendment.

Nicholas Soames: I want to pursue the point with regard to boar. Would the Minister consider an amendment to allow the use of more than two dogs to flush out boar? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal knows, the boar is an enormous, powerful animal. He is familiar with the technique used to hunt boar in Germany, where they use proper dachshunds, which are fierce and unlike the ones that the Minister will have seen. I have never had to flush out wild boar in Mid-Sussex, but it is possible in a heavily wooded area. Given that a wild boar is a much bigger animal than a fox or a weasel, would the Minister consider an amendment to allow the use of more than two dogs to flush out a boar?
Mr. Gummer rose—

Alun Michael: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman wants to help the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex, but I want to reply to at least part of the question before allowing a further intervention.
 The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex has misinterpreted the schedule 1 exemption, which allows the use of two dogs for tracking a boar in order to shoot it. I have seen nothing to suggest that that is not a reasonable limitation on that specific purpose. He is right about the methods used in Germany, and I am happy to illuminate him that I saw some of them in the Black forest in the mid-1960s.

Peter Luff: The mid-1960s!

Alun Michael: There is no need to pepper my words with that kind of mockery. I have to tell the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire that it was not an completely illuminating experience, but I am aware of the nature of wild boar and of the dachshund used for hunting.

John Gummer: I am trying to help the right hon. Gentleman. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex is the right person to speak on the subject because when his grandfather was a candidate in my constituency, one important aspect of his election address was his chairmanship of the Large Black Pig Society.

Alun Michael: I am tempted to say that I regard the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex with affection as a friendly boar. The entertainment caused by amendment No. 359 has led me astray from amendment No. 43, which I ought to address.
 Amendment No. 43 seeks to change the interpretation of ''wild mammal''. Under the Bill, a ''wild mammal'' is any mammal that is living wild. The amendment seeks to limit the description of wild mammals to deer, hare, foxes or mink. As I have indicated, the Bill concerns the hunting of all wild mammals with dogs, and it has not been restructured to cover what hunters would describe as the main quarry species. We have all strayed into illustrations that have made that point better than those comments. We will allow the Bill to govern the hunting of any other wild mammals that may become pests requiring 
 control in the future. That reflects the fact that the Bill is based on the principles of utility and least suffering, which can be applied to all wild mammals. 
 I should make it clear that the amendment would not achieve its intention because wild mammals other than deer, hare, foxes or mink would still be covered by the definitions in clause 45(1)(a) to (c): 
''a wild mammal which has been bred or tamed for any purpose, a wild mammal which is in captivity or confinement''
 or 
''a wild mammal which has escaped or been released from captivity or confinement''.
 It is difficult to see the logic behind the distinction in the amendment. If the amendment were adopted, it would be open to hunters to start hunting any animal other than the four species mentioned. There could be wild boar hunts in Kent, hunts for the beast of Bodmin or hunts for native wild cats. I am not suggesting that it would never be appropriate to hunt those wild mammals, but I instinctively feel that they contribute to the diversity of our fauna and should not be hunted. The key point is that if someone wants to hunt any creature whose hunting is neither banned nor exempt under the Bill, they should seek registration so that the need for the hunting and the question of whether that is the least cruel method can be properly examined. That principle runs clearly throughout the Bill. 
 I hope that I have been able to illuminate Opposition Members' understanding of the way in which the Bill works, and satisfied the hon. Member for North Wiltshire so that he will not press his amendment.

James Gray: Each Committee stage has its high points. Looking back, I think that the high point for me will be the image of a group of lederhosen-clad gents chasing their dachshunds after wild boar. It is a wonderful, surreal image and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex for raising it. I shall remember it always. Equally, the Minister's notion that we might convert our foxhounds to chase the beast of Bodmin seems rather unlikely, although there is some evidence in Wiltshire that we have a healthy population of panthers. Perhaps at some stage they might breed to such a degree that it will be necessary to find a way of hunting them, although that is not the amendment's intention.
 I remain unhappy with the clause's drafting. The wording: 
''In this Act 'wild mammal' includes, in particular''
 is not good English. Replacing ''includes, in particular'' with ''is'' seems sensible, and clearly defining in the Bill what we are seeking to ban the hunting of, has something to recommend it. None the less, these were largely probing and not hugely important amendments and I shall not delay the Committee by seeking a vote on them. Perhaps the Minister will consider the point about ''includes, in particular'' between now and the enactment of the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

James Gray: I beg to move amendment No. 294, in
clause 45, page 18, line 11, leave out 
 'includes, in particular, any case' 
 and insert 'is'.

Marion Roe: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 360, in 
clause 45, page 18, line 12, after 'mammal', insert 
 'with the intention of killing or wounding it'.
 Amendment No. 95, in 
clause 45, page 18, line 13, leave out from 'pursuit' to under in line 14 and insert '(by him or'.
 Amendment No. 354, in 
clause 45, page 18, line 14, at end insert 
 ', or 
 ( ) a person employs one or more dogs to attack or kill a wild mammal other than in self defence'.

James Gray: The amendments seek to clarify the definition of hunting. Whereas the last group of amendments was reasonably lightweight and, although important, not hugely significant, the changes that these amendments propose to subsection (2) are extremely important. In our debates during the past two months, it has become plain several times that there is some confusion over what ''hunting'' actually is. Clarifying the nature of the offence is important not only from the point of view of those of us who would like to avoid carrying out the offence, but from that of the courts. It is vital for the Bill to make clear to them in detail what the offence is. The amendments would improve the definition of hunting in subsection (2) in three ways. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West will, I think, then make a half-hearted attempt to do the same with amendment No. 354, to which I shall return in a moment.
 Amendment No. 294 again addresses the rather loose use of the words ''includes, in particular'' and suggests replacing that with ''is''. That is good English and introduces clarity. Amendment No. 360 is perhaps more important, and would amend subsection (2)(a), which currently reads 
''a person engages or participates in the pursuit of a wild mammal'',
 to add 
''with the intention of killing or wounding it''.
 Amendment No. 95 would amend subsection (2)(b), which currently reads 
''one or more dogs are employed in that pursuit (whether or not by him and whether or not under his control or direction)''.
 We seek to amend that so that it says 
''by him or under his control or direction''.
 Again, that seems reasonably clear and straightforward. The amendments would improve the definition of hunting, and I shall speak briefly to each of them. 
 Amendment No. 294 seeks to address one of the Bill's major flaws, namely, lack of certainty. Certainty is essential from the point of view of those who will be covered by the Bill and of the courts and the police who will be tasked with enforcing it. For example, mere passive presence when someone else is hunting 
 could support a conviction. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West did not rely on ''Archbold'' on the previous group of amendments. I fear that I shall come back to ''Archbold'' in support of the point that passive presence when somebody else is hunting, as it is apparently defined, could support a conviction. Paragraph 18–18 of ''Archbold'' states: 
''the fact that a person was voluntarily and purposely present witnessing the commission of a crime and offered no opposition, though he might reasonably be expected to prevent it and had the power to do so, or at least express his dissent, might in some circumstances afford cogent evidence upon which a jury would be justified in finding that he wilfully encouraged and so aided and abetted.''
 It appears from that quote that a person who was merely there passively, not taking part and not doing anything with the dogs—we discussed the German tourist on a previous occasion—might be caught under the Bill. That possibly accidental inclusion becomes all the more serious because of the drafting of clause 45(2).

Rob Marris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Gray: I am happy to give way, so long as the hon. Gentleman does not quote ''Archbold'' back at me.

Rob Marris: I fear I have to. I shall not quote extensively from it. The one word I want to draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to in the quote that he read out is the word ''wilfully'', a very important word in what he read out and in terms of the hypothetical German tourist.

James Gray: ''Wilfully'' is indeed what the person will be accused of, but he was not wilfully observing. He happened to be there
''voluntarily and purposely present witnessing the commission of a crime''.
 As ''Archbold'' says, that can be interpreted by the jury to mean that 
''he wilfully encouraged and so aided and abetted''.
 The word ''wilfully'' is the offence. The person is not doing anything wilfully. He happens to be there and it may be interpreted, according to ''Archbold'', as meaning that he 
''wilfully encouraged and so aided and abetted.''
 That is precisely the point that we are making. 
 The German tourist is not wilfully doing anything at all. He happens to be there, standing beside his Volkswagen, observing a strange English custom in front of him. However, if ''Archbold'' is to be believed, the fact that he is there at all may be interpreted by the jury to mean that he is wilfully aiding and abetting a crime. That is precisely the point that ''Archbold'' makes, so I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reconfirming it. 
 The problem with the drafting of clause 45(2) is that a person could participate in the pursuit of a wild mammal without realising that he was doing so. Despite what the Minister said, there is no requirement for knowledge to be shown, let alone specific intent. If one or more dogs are employed in the pursuit, the person is guilty, even if he has no idea why they are being employed or what they are being employed to do. The German tourist is a classic case. 
 The definitions allow prosecution when a single dog is engaged in pursuit or search of a wild mammal and, because there is no requirement to show specific intent to hunt, they provide scope for others to be caught by the Bill. The word ''intent'' is the important word here. The Minister has said on several previous occasions that he believes that the offence is the intent to pursue the wild animal, but as the word ''intent'' does not appear in the Bill, it might be possible to do something unintentionally. 
 When this issue arose on amendment No. 295 the Minister said: 
''Hunting is an intentional activity. A person must intend a dog to pursue a wild mammal. They cannot hunt accidentally or unintentionally. That is implicit in the ordinary English meaning of the word 'hunting', and does not need to be made explicit in the Bill.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 6 February 2003; c. 895.]
 I am sure that, on this occasion, the Minister will not accuse me of misquoting him or taking him out of context. He says straightforwardly—I think that he says it on two or three other occasions—that hunting is an intentional activity; it is not possible to hunt accidentally or unintentionally. As he said: 
''That is implicit in the ordinary English meaning of the word 'hunting'.''
 However, where that simplicity goes awry is that dogs naturally search for and pursue mammals. We must remember that we are talking not only about pursuit, but about the offence of searching. All dogs naturally search for and pursue mammals, but, for the purpose of criminal liability, a person may be taken to know and to intend the natural consequences of his actions. My dog Juno is a Jack Russell terrier. Her instinct is to chase things and she does this all the time; indeed it is very difficult to stop her. Those of us who own Jack Russell terriers know that they often chase things down holes and then never come out again. I have often heard of terriers being down holes for two or three days at a time; sometimes the RSPCA has to come and get them out, one way or another. 
 Suppose I take Juno out for a walk round my village in Wiltshire. I have no intention whatsoever to hunt. She chases a fox, according to her instinct; she gets as far as she will and then she backs off. The natural instinct of terriers is not to fight or kill the fox. They bark at it, chase it away and then back off. Nonetheless, I—a perfectly ordinary private citizen not doing anything other than taking my dog for a walk—could be accused of condoning an illegal action. 
 The definition of hunting does not include the word ''intention''. Despite Pepper v. Hart, the Minister constantly uses the work ''intention'', though the definition of hunting in the Bill does not include this word. In his response to our concerns about dog walking, he relies on what he calls the ordinary English meaning of the word. If we rely on the Oxford English Dictionary and the ordinary usage of the word, why does he define it in the way he has done under clause 45? 
 Either he must give a full and proper definition of the word in the Bill, or tell us that he is happy to leave 
 it to the courts to decide. If he does not leave it to the courts to decide, we will be relying on case law and there are all kinds of difficulties associated with that. 
 Amendment No. 294 seeks to correct that issue by removing the words ''includes, in particular'', and replacing them with the word ''is''. This tightens up the Bill and makes it clearer. Amendment No. 360 inserts after ''mammal'' the words: 
''with the intention of killing or wounding it''.
 There is a curiosity about the Bill that we have discussed in previous sessions; the offence is to search for, and pursue, a mammal. Government Members may recall the debate in which I pointed out that, frequently, no fox is found on a day's hunting; an entirely blank day, as it is known in the trade. The Minister made it plain that it would be an offence to go out and seek a fox even if one were not found, because of the intention to do so. 
 Equally it sometimes happens that hounds go on a heel line; that is, they go in the opposite direction to the fox. The Minister made it plain that this would also be an offence. Curiously enough, if hounds find a fox asleep in the grass and kill it straight away without pursuing it, that would be perfectly legal. The offence is not killing the animal using a dog; it is searching for and pursuing it. 
 Inserting the words: 
''with the intention of killing or wounding it''
 clarifies the offence. If I go out with my hounds with the intention of killing or wounding an animal, I am committing an offence. On the other hand, if Juno runs away and catches a mink in my back garden, I have committed no crime because there is no intention. This encapsulates precisely what the Minister has discussed. The problem with the Bill is that it could ensnare dog walkers and innocent owners of dogs. The amendment, by inserting the words, 
''with the intention of killing or wounding it'',
 would clarify the definition and exempt those people. That is the purpose of amendment No. 360. 
 Amendment No. 95 would omit part of the clause that we find obnoxious—who will be prosecuted for the offence. I remind the Committee that clause 45(2)(b) states that someone commits an offence if 
''one or more dogs are employed in that pursuit (whether or not by him and whether or not under his control or direction).''
 We propose in the amendment that that the offence would be committed if 
''one or more dogs are employed in that pursuit (by him or under his control or direction).
 The amendment may sound simple and it is a clarifying amendment, but there is a particularly important point behind it. Its effect would be to limit the definition of hunting so that liability is restricted to people engaged in or participating in pursuit of a wild animal or controlling or directing the dogs. The Committee will recall that we discussed that on a number of occasions and we believe that the Minister's definition of hunting is inadequate. We do not know whether the Minister means that the people 
 who are hunting are the people in charge of the dogs—the master, the whippers-in, the huntsmen and other officials of the hunt—or people who are, for example, galloping around, often three or four fields away with the field following the hunt. We do not know whether he means people on foot or in cars or even passers-by who stop for a bit of a gander. 
 Until recently we thought that it was unclear what the Minister intended, but he has made it clear that the people who would be committing an offence would not be the field, whether mounted or in cars. They would not be the passers-by, or members of the League Against Cruel Sports who might be pursuing an animal to demonstrate that there was something wrong. They would not be members of the Hunt Saboteurs Association. The only people who would be guilty would be those in control of the dogs, by which he presumably means the huntsmen, whippers-in and the master. He has made that clear in the past, but we believe that the existing definition in the Bill clouds that clarity. At the moment, the definition is when 
''one or more dogs are employed in that pursuit (whether or not by him and whether or not under his control or direction).''
 Amendment No. 294 would provide a clearer definition by inserting the word ''is''. We believe that hunting should not cover followers and that, I believe, is the Minister's intention, but the drafting of the Bill lacks clarity. 
 The amendments would clarify definitions in the Bill, but not to make it easier to hunt; if anything, they may tighten the restrictions a little. Unless the Bill is clear and straightforward and everyone understands it, two things will happen. First, it will become a lawyers' charter with lawyers crawling all over it and the courts becoming bogged down. Secondly, it will lead to bad feeling in the countryside because people will not understand whether the Pony Club going out with the Avon Vale hunt is guilty or merely the huntsmen and master of the hunt are guilty. 
 If the Bill is to stand the test of time, as the Minister constantly tells he wants it to do, it is important that it is clear and that the definition should be straightforward. We must know what hunting is and who will be guilty in the event of an offence being committed. The purpose of the three amendments is to clarify the definitions in the Bill and I hope that the logic of what I have said will, in at least some part, strike a chord with the Minister.

Rob Marris: I rise to speak to amendment No. 354 in my name and also to the other amendments in this group, which were tabled by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire. I shall go through what he said more or less seriatim. First, I return to our old friend ''Archbold'' and the German tourist. I did not write down the exact words, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong. The key part in ''Archbold'' seems to be where it says that the matter can be interpreted by the jury to mean that the defendant wilfully aided and abetted. That means that it would be left open to the jury to draw that conclusion, but it would have to conclude that that was wilful.
 Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's German tourist, who we are told drives a Volkswagen, would have to be doing more than simply standing in his lederhosen with his dachshund by his side. He would have to be wilfully doing something, which in legal terms suggests something more positive than merely stopping a car and winding down the window, or even stepping outside it. 
 With regard to what the hon. Gentleman said about clause 45 generally, may I draw his attention to its title, which is ''Interpretation''? The clause does not create an offence; it sets out some of the ingredients or factors that could go into an offence, and there is quite a difference between those two things. One constantly has to fight against the temptation to elide the ingredients of an offence and the creation of an offence. 
 The hon. Gentleman talked about intent, particularly in relation to amendment No. 360. I urge my hon. Friends to resist that amendment, which brings us back to our old friend ''intent''. I would caution the hon. Gentleman in two ways. Legally, there is a difference between basic intent and specific intent, as we lawyers call it. Perhaps I can clarify that for the Committee, although many hon. Members will be aware of the difference, and I am sure that you are, Mrs. Roe. 
 If there is an offence of assault causing grievous bodily harm, someone can also be convicted of a separate offence, which is assault with the intention of causing grievous bodily harm. That is a more serious offence. It is not simply that a person glassed someone in a pub, but that they intended to glass them. That offence is more serious because it connotes within it the idea of foresight—the idea that something was planned, albeit it might have been almost in the spirit of the moment—and that the person intended to cause grievous bodily harm, rather than that there was simply the basic intent to throw a glass or bottle at someone. As a result, it is, quite properly, more difficult to secure a conviction for that offence; greater evidence is needed. 
 On the definition side, the amendment would raise the ingredient of the offence from basic intent to specific intent. That may be the intention—to coin a phrase—of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire, but I suspect not. I imagine that he thought that he was simply being helpful and clarifying the situation. In fact, he has moved it on a bit, which is why I urge my hon. Friends to resist the amendment. 
 Pepper v. Hart is the case constantly cited by the hon. Gentleman. May I say in passing that I think that he has misunderstood that case? Pepper v. Hart said that the official record could be used by a court where there was ambiguity in legislation. If there is no ambiguity, the judge cannot use the official record. That is a crucial difference in terms of asking my right hon. Friend the Minister to clarify things. However much he clarifies things—he does an excellent job—if there is no ambiguity in the Bill, which becomes an Act, his wonderful explanations will be irrelevant in a court of law.

James Gray: I hesitate to pick up a lawyer on a point of law and I do so with trepidation. None the less, I am making the point that it is not clear in the Bill what the offence is. There is ambiguity in the Bill, and Pepper v. Hart does apply, because the Minister has inserted the word ''intention'' into this. That does not appear in the Bill; the Minister has brought it up. That is why Pepper v. Hart is important.

Rob Marris: If intention is not stated in the Bill, one starts as a lawyer from the premise that basic intent is what is needed, which brings us back to almost exactly where I started and why I started there. I shall not rehearse all that again. There is no ambiguity in the Bill, so the Minister's wonderful explanations would be irrelevant. That brings us back to the point that I made almost at the beginning. The title of clause 45 is ''Interpretation'', so the clause does not create offences, but deal with ingredients of them.
 My amendment No. 354 is designed to clarify the definition of hunting, not to create or exempt any offence elsewhere in the Bill. It is concerned with the ingredients of the offence of hunting and its key word is ''employs'', which connotes a positive action. It is nothing to do with a hypothetical German tourist getting out of his Volkswagen in his lederhosen, standing up with his Dachshund, shouting ''Schnell, Hans, Schnell!'' or whatever one says; my right hon. Friend could tell me because he lived there. The positive action in ''employing'' is one justification for the amendment. 
 More important is the very point that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire made; that if long dogs and long hounds happen upon a beast or a wild mammal as defined in clause 45(1) and immediately kill it, the person in the street is likely to view it as hunting. An immediate kill by dogs if employed by individuals with the intent of killing—not the same as three dogs chasing a hare in the park—might well be seen as hunting. If a dog rounds the corner and immediately finds a hare, that poses the question as to whether it amounts to hunting. Intent, as well as a positive action—the ''employ'' on the part of the individual—is important.

James Gray: I am most interested in the hon. Gentleman's interpretation. He claims that if a dog happened on an animal and killed it, an offence would be committed, but where does he find such an offence in the Bill? The defence is clear; that the two or more dogs engaged in the pursuit of a wild animal are not doing so with the owner's intention to kill it.

Rob Marris: As ever, I stand to be corrected, but I did not say that. If I did, the hon. Gentleman would be right to pick me up for it, because I have stressed all along that clause 45 does not create any offences; it deals only with the ingredients of an offence.
 Let me make it clearer than I did before. Someone out walking with four dogs might think, ''I'll do a little foxhunting or hare hunting today''. They round the bend and a hare is immediately killed with no pursuit. My reading of the clause—my right hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong—is that, as drafted, the ingredients of an offence cannot be seen to apply. Without pursuit, which is needed under clause 45(2)(a) 
 and (b), an offence is not committed. My amendment would add clause 45(2)(c) and cover the gap in the legislation where pursuit is not an issue, but an instant kill takes place; an incisive and acute point made by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire. 
 We need the amendment to ensure that the ingredients in the clause do not create an offence elsewhere in the Bill for someone walking in the park with three dogs that just happen on a hare. That explains the significance of ''employs'' in the amendment. Similarly, someone out walking with three dogs in Kent who is attacked by a wild boar—they can be fearsome creatures—could admit to employing his dogs to attack the boar in self-defence. The ingredients in the clause and the exception in the last five words of the amendment would cover that position. I seek my hon. Friends' support for the amendment because it clarifies matters and deals with an instant kill.

Peter Luff: The amendments are genuinely important. I believe that the definition of hunting in the Bill is defective and that the attempt of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire to improve it is important. I suspect that the Minister will reject the amendments, but he should reflect on whether his definition serves his purpose. Perhaps it is not in the interests of those of us who believe that hunting is not necessarily cruel to highlight such inadequacies, but I believe that they are serious.
 I have never been foxhunting and I do not pretend to be an expert on it, so in commenting on it, I rely on the advice that I receive from others. There are two aspects to a definition of hunting; what the dog does and what the human being does. Both elements must be in place. 
 Let us look first at what the dog does. I am told that it can do one of five things when, in the broadest sense, it is out looking for wild animals, which is what the Bill defines as hunting. It can search for casts, which is a technical term. In that case, it cannot then be shown what the dog is searching for, or that there is something there at all. There is therefore a real problem in defining that as hunting. 
 Secondly, a dog can hunt by scent, following a scent line. I think that the technical term for that is pointing. Is that right?

James Gray: No.

Peter Luff: I have got that wrong. However, that is not hunting and, as my hon. Friend said, it can take the dogs in the wrong direction, which is an important consideration. Again, one cannot then be sure what the dog is looking for, or whether there is anything there at all.
 Thirdly, a dog can mark the quarry species. That involves baying at an animal that it cannot reach, perhaps a fox that has gone to ground, or a mink that has gone up a tree. Again, that is not hunting because the prey is safe from attack. The dog cannot be said to be hunting the animal in question. 
 The fourth thing that a dog can do is to flush an animal from cover. That can be considered hunting, 
 but it is certainly not hunting if the intent is for an agent other than the dog to deal with the prey, as in, for example, shooting, dog trials, falconry, netting or even photography—getting the animal out to take a photograph of it. Those are not actually hunting. If the intent is for the dog to catch the prey, it is hunting. That fourth category can go either way. 
 The fifth activity is definitely hunting, which is the direct pursuit of the prey by eye as the dog courses the animal with the intent to catch it. There is no doubt there at all. Those definitional issues are not properly dealt with in the Bill and will lead to real difficulties with implementation. 
 The second aspect to hunting is what the human being does, and there are four different things that the human can do. First, the human is the person responsible for control of the dog at the time of the incident. That is quite straightforward. Secondly, the human may indicate intent by encouraging or inciting the dog to direct pursuit. That is an important consideration. The third possibility is that, as an indication of non-intent, the person discourages the dog from direct pursuit and attempts to get the dog back. The fourth possibility is that the dog is unsupervised and there is no human being there. That is negligence. I will not pursue this point, because it is not in the terms of the Bill, but I would say that that also applied to a human who does not supervise his or her cat. 
 The definitional questions—the five aspects of what dogs can do and the four aspects of what human beings can do—are genuinely important. The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire make a difference and improve the Bill, but I fancy that the Minister needs to think still harder about the definition of hunting. I do not think that he takes account of those different aspects, and I think that he will find his Bill difficult to implement.

Alun Michael: It is quite interesting that when one gets to definitions—the English language offers continual fascination and variety. Pinning things down in terms that make sense both colloquially in everyday English and in the law is one of the great challenges that parliamentarians face.
 Amendments Nos. 294 and 95 effectively restrict the definition of the person hunting to such an extent that individuals would be able to avoid deregistration or prosecution, even though they might be actively hunting and in active breach of the provisions of the Bill. For example, a person in a group hunt might be hunting, but because the dogs are not under his direct control or direction, as would be required under subsection (2)(b) if it were to be amended as proposed, that would not be considered to be hunting. If that person were not hunting, he would by definition be protected from the consequences of any breaches. That would be unacceptable, and I cannot support the amendment in that light. 
 Several hon. Members have referred to followers or people who might be undertaking related activities, and to the question of whether or not they are hunting. Subsection (4)(b) makes it clear that a person is hunting a wild mammal with dogs even if the dogs 
 used in the pursuit of the wild mammal are not under his direct control. It will be for the benefit of people who might be affected by the Bill if that point is put beyond doubt in the Bill. As followers lack the necessary intention to pursue or catch the wild mammal, they will not be hunting and so will be outside the scope of the clause. Active participants in the hunt will be caught, whether or not they were in control of the dogs. 
 The terms of amendment No. 294 raise issues that we largely covered in respect of amendment No. 359. A person is understood to be hunting a wild mammal in the ordinary English meaning of those words, but the clause makes it clear that a person is hunting when he engages in the pursuit of a wild mammal and dogs are engaged in that pursuit. That is not an exhaustive definition of hunting, although it should cover most cases. It does not limit the ordinary English meaning of the word ''hunting'', which requires an intentional pursuit—a point that I have made almost to the point of boring the Committee, although it is an important point. The activity cannot be done accidentally. What matters is the person's intention, not the dogs'. 
 Subsection (2) refers to ''a person hunting''. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire spoke mistakenly of a person being at risk because the Jack Russell terrier or even Fifi follows its instinct and chases wild mammals while out on a walk. That person would not be hunting. The ordinary meaning of the word ''pursuit'' incorporates the aspect of intention. The question is not that of defining the word specially or separately in relation to the Bill. It might help if I offer the definition given by the shorter Oxford dictionary. The word ''hunt'' is interpreted as: 
''to pursue wild animals or game''.
 The word ''pursue'' is defined as: 
''follow with intent to overtake and capture or harm; hunt; chase''.
 Pursuit is defined as: 
''the action of pursuing with intent to overtake and catch or harm; an instance of this; a chase''.
 The element of intention is not something that I am importing into the definition of hunting: it is in the common sense definition of the word and contained in common usage. 
 I must also resist amendment No. 360. The clause defines the activity of hunting a wild mammal. The word ''hunting'' should be interpreted, as I have already made clear, as having its ordinary English meaning, which is to pursue a wild mammal with the intention of catching it. However, I considered it useful to offer clarification—not substitution—in the Bill. Subsection (2) does that and makes it clear that a person is hunting when he or she 
''engages or participates in the pursuit of a wild mammal, and . . . one or more dogs are engaged in that pursuit''.
 As I have stated in this debate and in previous debates on other clauses, hunting is, by its nature, an intentional activity. A person cannot hunt by accident. Amendment No. 360, by adding the words 
''with the intention of killing or wounding it''
 to the definition of hunting, would allow suffering to be inflicted on wild mammals simply for fun. It would 
 allow a person to use dogs to pursue a wild animal to capture and release it so that he could pursue it again, as long as he did not intend to kill or wound it. That could never serve any useful purpose—and would therefore fail the utility principle—and would obviously cause unacceptable suffering to the wild mammals being toyed with. Such an activity would therefore be unacceptable on the grounds of inflicting suffering and being cruel. 
 Concern has been expressed by, for example, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation that the Bill as drafted would prevent certain legitimate activities that do not constitute pest control or do not involve the capture or killing of quarry. Such activities include the tracking of deer for population censuses, managing a herd, or gathering information about the behaviour of wild mammals for scientific research. As I made clear earlier, I believe that the Bill is clear on that point, but I am considering the issue and taking legal advice, so, if necessary, I will table an appropriate amendment at a later stage of the Bill to permit dogs to be used for such purposes when there is no suggestion of any harm being caused in any way to the wild mammals concerned. 
 Amendment No. 354 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. I am now clearer about what he is trying to achieve through the amendment that I was before the debate. However, it is not clear how the new paragraph that the amendment would insert would fit with paragraphs (a) and (b). At present, hunting with dogs is defined to include cases in which: 
''(a) a person engages or participates in the pursuit of a wild mammal, and
(b) one or more dogs are employed in that pursuit''. 
The insertion of the words 
''( ) a person employs one or more dogs to attack or kill a wild mammal''
 at the end of that definition would appear to be an alternative to the requirements in (a) and (b) of a pursuit with dogs, but, as drafted, that would not be the actual effect of the amendment. 
 Hunting a wild mammal with dogs by definition involves the pursuit of a quarry, so I am not convinced that my hon. Friend's amendment falls under the definition of hunting. His amendment seems to address a mischief outside the scope of the Bill, which does not attempt to cover all cases in which dogs are used to inflict harm on wild mammals, but only those in which dogs are used to hunt wild mammals. That is the purpose of the Bill. 
 For example, setting a dog on a wild mammal held captive in a cage would not involve any element of pursuit or hunting, and so would not be covered by the Bill as drafted. It would, however, be an offence under the Protection of Animals Act 1911. I seek to persuade my hon. Friend that there is no unintended lacuna in the Bill. The matter that he seeks to address, if I have understood him correctly, is dealt with under other legislation, namely, the 1911 Act. The Bill seeks to deal 
 specifically and precisely with cruelty associated with hunting with dogs.

Rob Marris: I understood my right hon. Friend the Minister to say—perhaps I misheard him—that hunting necessarily involved pursuit. If so, why does the Bill have the word ''pursuit'' in subsection (2)(a) and (b)? It is redundant.

Alun Michael: I think that it is included for the sake of clarity. One issue that concerns people in relation to hunting is the direct activity—the kill and the injury to animals. However, they are also concerned about the pursuit. I am not a lawyer like my hon. Friend, nor do I claim the exalted abilities of a parliamentary draftsman, so I shall have to consider his point in detail. The point is that pursuit is a matter of concern, but is an essential element of hunting. That is what the Bill is all about, and I hope that that will be sufficient to persuade my hon. Friend. I am happy to return to the point if he so wishes.

James Gray: This has been a useful and interesting debate for one reason if for no other. We have tussled away at the question of intent at some length. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West tried to assist us with the two different types of legal intent. The important point is that the Minister has made it plain that the offence is to intend to hunt—not the hunting itself. He used definitions from the Oxford English dictionary in support of that. The corollary of that is that if one did not intend to hunt—if one were unintentionally hunting—one would not be guilty of an offence. An innocent individual such as myself whose dog happens to chase a fox, even though I did not wish it to, would not be guilty because I was not intending to hunt. I take some comfort from that. Equally, people could state in their defence that they did not intend their hounds to kill a fox. It is important that the Minister has made that point about intent.

Alun Michael: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I do not want to return to previous debates because we have made the point on several occasions. However, I want to make clear on the record that I have not talked about intentional hunting. I have made it clear that intent is an essential element in the term ''hunt'' or ''hunting''. I note that the hon. Gentleman again suggested that I was talking about intentional hunting. My point is that intention is an integral and necessary element of the definition of hunting.

James Gray: That is a legitimate clarification. In other words, if I can demonstrate that I did not intend to hunt, I would not be hunting. That is fair enough, but it is throwing words around.

Alun Michael: No, it is very important.

James Gray: If my interpretation is right, the Minister says that the meaning of ''hunt'' includes the intention to pursue an animal. The word includes intention, so it is not necessary to include the word ''intention'' on the face of the Bill. Therefore, if I am doing something and do not intend to pursue an animal, I am not guilty of hunting. I am carrying out some other activity that
 does not come under the definition of the word ''hunting'', such as taking my dog for a walk, or going drag hunting.
 The Minister's contention is exploded by drag hunting. That does not involve the chasing or killing of any animals. They want us to go drag hunting, where there is no intention to kill anything. I suspect the Minister's precise definition is exploded by that term. Nevertheless, if I am doing something and do not intend to kill an animal, I am not hunting.

Alun Michael: We are talking about the hunting of wild mammals. Drag hunting is not the hunting of a wild mammal, so there is no definitional problem.

James Gray: It is not a definitional problem at all. I was seeking to work out whether intent to hunt was or was not important. The Minister argued that using the word ''intent'' in the Bill was not important because under ordinary definitions in the Oxford English dictionary the word ''hunt'' includes the word intention. Hunting according to his definition includes the intention to catch and kill an animal, but drag hunting does not do that, nor does hunt the thimble for that matter. The important point is that the Minister has made it plain that the offence is to intend to catch an animal—he used that phrase a moment ago. Therefore, if there is no intention to do so, one is not committing an offence.
 The other question that we have had a useful gallop round during the debate is that of pursuit. I sympathise with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. It is perfectly plain that the offence is to pursue the animal, not to kill it. A clause could easily have been inserted that said, ''Anybody caught using dogs to kill a wild mammal will be guilty of an offence'', but it was not. Nowhere does the Bill say that killing a wild mammal using dogs is an offence. Merely pursuing it is an offence. If, as often happens particularly during the cub-hunting season—the autumn hunting season—one finds an animal and kills it immediately without any pursuit, my understanding from what the Minister has told us this afternoon is that that will not be an offence. If it can be proved that no pursuit is involved, it is not an offence. I therefore sympathise with the intention of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. 
 We have had a useful gallop round the course. The intention point is useful, as is the pursuit point. It was worth re-emphasising both of those. None the less, I accept that the definitions in the Bill are sufficient. I was trying to help the Minister. I welcome the fact that he clarified the definitions so helpfully from the point of view of those of us who like hunting. I am content to leave it at that.

Rob Marris: I thought that I would have one last trot around my amendment. [Hon. Members: ''A canter.''] Perhaps even a canter.

Gregory Barker: A gallop.

Rob Marris: Not a gallop, I am afraid.
 In his near-closing remarks, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire again fastened on the point that my amendment is designed, perhaps inexpertly, to address. In fox hunting and in the shorthand that I have chosen to employ the word for the instant kill is something like ''chop''. That would not be an offence under the Bill, because the person could say, ''The ingredients are not there, because I am not hunting. Look at clause 45(2). There is nothing there about the instant kill. We just came upon this cub and the dogs did for it immediately.'' That is the chop. 
 I am reassured by my right hon. Friend the Minister saying that he will look again at this point and I urge him to do so, because I still believe that it is a gap in the Bill. I say in a friendly way to him that I am not quite convinced about dictionary definitions. At one point ''pursuit'' is inherent in hunting, but at another it is not, so it is included for the sake of clarity in clause 45(2)(a) and (b). I urge my right hon. Friend to consider again the inherent nature, or lack of it, of pursuit and hunting, and at the instant kill.

Alun Michael: When the chop takes place, as my hon. Friend has described it, the issue is not whether there has been a chase, but the activity that the individual or group of individuals is undertaking. If they are engaged in hunting, they are engaged in hunting. The instant nature of the kill is a detail that does not change that.
 In relation to the definition in the clause, the references to ''pursuit'' are used to provide clarity that those elements are included in the definition of hunting and are not exclusive. That is why I have spoken, on the one hand, about the common usage of the word ''hunting'' and, on the other, about the clarification that we sought in the definition. However, I shall come back to my hon. Friend to gain a common understanding of the issues, perhaps outside the Committee.

Rob Marris: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. In terms of the practicalities, if a police officer came across a number of hounds or dogs eating a hare, he might deduce that there had been a pursuit. However, if the individual said ''No, this is a chop. There is no pursuit here. We have committed no offence, because we weren't hunting'', the police officer probably would not be able to launch a prosecution. However, I am reassured.

James Gray: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Ainger.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Five o'clock till Thursday 27 February at five minutes to Nine o'clock.